Re: [CSS21] Make XHTML <body> magic just like HTML <body>

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:06:43 +1000, David Woolley  
<> wrote:
>> How is that ideal? You'd always need to know the markup language for  
>> the structural elements and the nesting of them, etc. Besides, for all  
>> text
> The structural elements are identified in the style sheet.


> The reason for requiring explicit closing tags in XML, is
> not the popularly believed one that it means that browsers
> will reject invalid documents, or that HTML syntax is in some
> way ambiguous, but so that the nesting structure of the document
> is explicit in the document and the parser can recover it without
> knowing anything other than XML syntax rules.


> The optional tags in HTML mean that whole elements can only be
> inferred by knowing the detailed syntax of HTML.  (Although, those
> who want the supposed validation advantage of XML are free to make
> all tags in HTML explicit (some older, tag soup, browsers can get
> upset by having some of the end tags, though).)

I don't think this discussion has anything to do with HTML or XML syntax.  
At least, that was way besides my point.

>> documents distributed over the web you'd use a non-proprietary  
>> language, ideally.
> But those may be domain specific, e.g. an XML invoice's detailed syntax
> needs to be known to an accounting program, but not when simply being
> displayed to a human.  That allows one to have efficient EDI formats,  
> with published specifications, which are still usable by people with  
> only generic software.  It also means that generic software can edit a  
> document and provide visual feedback, removing the need to have editors  
> for every domain specific format.

Domain specific formats would just be converted to HTML. It's already  
being done.

Anne van Kesteren

Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 05:30:40 UTC